LexM.P. PETER versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G H [2009] 8 S.C.R. 576 M.P. PETER v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2009) MAY 11, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 145 - Property - Dispute over title - SOM ordering restoration of possession - Sessions Court allowing the Revision Petition - On appeal, High Court restored the order of SDM - SLP thereagainst dismissed - Fresh Declaratory suit filed - Interim application filed seeking prohibitory injunction against dispossession - SDM directing appellant to hand over the property to the respondent - High Court granting ad-interim stay, but dfr;_missed the Criminal Misc. case - On appeal, direction issued to parties to continue to maintain status quo till the decision of the Civil Court, subject to certain conditions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suits - Declaratory suit. Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438; Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Smt. Daya Sapra, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10997 of 2008, decided by S.C. on 5.05.2009 and Seth Ramdaya/ Jal v. Laxmi Prasad, 2009 (5) SCALE 527, referred to. Case Law Reference: (2Q04) 1 sec 438 referred to Para 28 2009 (5) SCALE 527 referred to Para 31 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2009. 576 I- • M.P. PETER v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 577 ' From the Judgment & Order dated 19.06.2008 of the High A Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008. Roy Abraham (Himinder Lal) for the Appellant. · U.U. Lalit, N.M. Varghese (R. Sathish) Harish Beoran, B Benny Antony and Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondents. ,, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 5.8. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted. c 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C.,No. 1709 of 2008 whereby and whereunder an order dated 3.04.2008 passed by .. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was affirmed. D 3. Appellant is said to be the owner and in possession of 13 < cents of land in Survey No. 412/1 of ,Kizhakambalam Village. On or about 09.01.1996, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 3 alleging that the property in question belonged to him. A report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police E on 12.04.1996 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that -· there existed a dispute over title of the said property by and between the appellant and the respondent No. 3. Before the Sub~Divisional Magistrate the appellant herein was arrayed as F 'the B party' and the respondent No. 3 herein was 'the A party'. By an order dated 9.10.1997, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held: "As B party is stated to be residing in the building G 1 constructed in the disputed property, he is directed to . handover the property to A party within two weeks from today failing which A party is entitled for restoration of possession of the property with police assistance." H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition, marked as Criminal; Revision No. 41 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam which by reason of an order dated 6.03.1999 was allowed. Respondent No. 3 filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 308 of 1999 before the High Court of 8 Kerala challenging the said order dated 6.03.1999. By reason of an order dated 25.09.2007, the revision petition was allowed by the High Court, holding: c D E " ... In the circumstances, I find that the decision of the Sessions Judge reversing the finding of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is liable to be set aside; and I do so. The decision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is restored. All the same, considering the fact that the respondents/ 8 party has constructed house and is residing therein, execution of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is only to be initiated after six months from today onwards .. ." 5. A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11.02.2008. 6. In the meantime, however, a suit, which was marked as O.S. No. 383 of 2007, was filed by the appellant in the Court of Munsif, Perumbavoor on 1.12.2007 for a declaration that the appellant was the owner and in possession of 13.25 cents of land in Old Survey No. 412/1 of Kizhakkambalam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.